Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Abu Ghraib

A gallery owner in San Francisco's North Beach takes a beating, literally, for displaying an oil painting of Abu Ghraib. Capobianco Gallery owner Lori Haigh knuckles under to thugs and closes up shop. Artist Guy Colwell, whose painting "Abuse," displayed in Capobianco's window, attracted the controversy, fares somewhat better: San Francisco supes may put his work up at City Hall. Underdog paper the Examiner was faster and more extensive on this story, but the Chronicle has an interesting snapshot of the dispirited Haigh. Local blogger Fenimore Cooper has speculated and commented from the beginning of this issue, and his latest thoughts are worth a read.

Comments

[meep]

You know, I have no problem with people making art like this--I think it is a good thing.

But for government officials to hang it in city hall??? Do they also have artwork of GIs torching Vietnamese villages? We did a lot worse there than in Iraq.

Oh, I see--Vietnam doesn't express solidarity against Bush. It's just the flip side of the coin of back a few years ago when conservative districts hung all those pictures of Monica blowing Clinton in the Oval Office. But it's only SF, what can you expect?

[slacker in the back row]

Germans in the 1930s only had a semi-functioning democracy since 1919, not like the US's 225+ years. Hopefully that will make a differnce in how far the average american will allow liberty to be traded for security.

Of course, I see the glass as half full!

[anon]

meep:
"But for government officials to hang it in city hall???"

The proposal for hanging it in City Hall isn't because the drawing is about the abuse. But because of the beating and intimidation of the art gallery owner. Big difference.

[Shadow Hunter]

I agree Slacker, It could never happen here. In fact here in Chicago where everyone's vote counts among the different political parties we have here and the alderman of those different parties are independent of the mayor who couldn't get unanimous agreement out of them to save his life.

Um...wait a min.. o nevermind.

There are no bulldozers at the airport.

[meep]

Yes, that is a big difference. But I do wonder if they would have hung a rah-rah go troops picture glorifying Bush under the exact same circumstances...

Sigh. Now if we could just get, say, the Chinese government to hang art critical of their government in its official offices. Then our self-flagellation would mean more, but it wouldn't be newsworthy. Ironic, that.

[Mark S.]

"Remember, social pressure is how anarcho-libertarians want personal behaviour to be controlled. No laws or courts are needed, and even if they are, the laws should be judge made."

Excuse me, but first of all there is a big difference between "socal pressure" or even market forces and the treatment the gallery owner received from the oh so very pro-government thug who attacked her. I would think that even in the most hypothetical anarcho-capitalist society a private arbitrator would respect freedom of speech of the artist AND the property rights of the gallery owner.

Secondly, you failed to notice that the libertarians on this list, "anarcho" or otherwise, are on side of the gallery owner. I would imagine all libertarians, regardless of what they're particular school of thought, would not want anyone to use coercive power against the artist or the gallery owner.

[Skeptikos]

Thank you Shadow, Slacker he has a point. I'm from Chi too, and at best we have a nominal democracy. We really have a Bossopoly. If our beloved king (he inherited his job from his dad) were to COMPLETELY destroy the city, we might be able to get rid of him, but it wouldn't be easy. In general, and I mean general, it does seem to work. And it is technically a democracy, but only technically. But I don't want to mislead you, he does rule with the consent of the governed, mostly at least. But in the end the mayor does pretty much what he wants. And the people may make some noise, but not too much.

I can't say most americans are that attached to freedom. And I also don't think this is a security vs liberty issue. It's more liberty vs non-liberty, attacking gallery owners rarely leads to security. The people who did that were not seeking security, but something else, something just like what Osama wants.

I too like to look at the glass as half full. But if I were to ask what most people I know are attached too, I would say it was Cable-TV. And as long as that stays running...Maybe I'm too much of a realist. Pessimists may be right more often, but optimists have more fun, isn?t that the saying. So I will call myself an Optimist with options.

So, we should note that this is only a seed of what they saw in Germany in the 30?s. But a bad seed that bears watching. Close watching. Maybe the gardeners among us can stop these weeds before they destroy the garden.

That?s why I draw a connection in my own mind between the violence here in this case, to fundi Islamics over there. And compare both to Germany. I do tend to lump all those who oppose (or run away from) freedom together. And I also note that not all of those who hate freedom work for Osama, some are right here.

And meep, I can?t tell if you are wanting the Chinese government to be more like us, or you are trying to lower my expectations of my government to what the Chinese might do. I really hate commies, and I despise commie governments. So I don?t like anyone comparing my country to a bunch of scum sucking, dirt eating Maosists. Of course we are better than that. Today. Tomorrow though? That?s what those who attacked the gallery owner wanted, a country more like China.

[bigbigslacker]

http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm

The official North Korean news agency has some interesting views on Abu Ghraib. "The terrible torture methods are the worst human rights abuse in the 21st century putting the fascists' torture methods into shadow." Really!

(BTW - I'm not the same slacker as that guy in the back row)

[Mark S.]

"And I also don't think this is a security vs liberty issue."

Give the Right a chance and they will: This painting spreads nothing but misinformation and lies about our county's noble efforts to combat terrorism here and abroad It demoralizes our fighting men and women, and tries to shame Americans into lowering our guard making us open to terrorist incidents.

Of course these interruptions in the traditionally protected rights to free speech will be temporary. However, the Constitution is not a suicide pact and we must occasionally make sacrifices for the freedom of future generations.

[meep]

China's government (and NK now that it is mentioned) is a blight upon humanity. I'm not trying to equivocate--merely point out that while China allows ZERO media coverage of its own abuses, our media give an often ludicrously excessive amount to ours. Why was Abu Ghraib headline news for a month? The same democratic processes and ends would be met without the obsession. Everything beyond a week is just agenda pushing.

Regardless of the details of this case, Abu Ghraib has become an icon for the self-loathing segment of our society; a badge of dishonor they love to wear. How else to explain the lack of artwork portraying the much, much more brutal, much more institutionalized, much longer-lived torture actions of Saddam? I fully support the gallery owner here, but I think at least some of the rage from the right comes from this apparent unwillingness of the left to see any wrongdoing in the world except for our own--while much worse things happen (2 million people died from malaria last year, easily preventable) worldwide, some of us cannot get over ourselves.

[Skeptikos]

meep,

"Everything beyond a week is just agenda pushing."
I can get behind that, but the agenda they are pushing is not political, but commercial, anything to keep you watching. I've noticed that everything is about obsesive these days. That seems to be the agenda, from the left to the right, eg. Ann Coulter.
-
"How else to explain the lack of artwork portraying the much, much more brutal, much more institutionalized, much longer-lived torture actions of Saddam?"
Well, now Saddam wasn't an american was he? Well unless you consider our support for him back when he was gassing Iranians.
Maybe if the Iraqi's see some of this freedom Bush keeps talking about we might see some art like that. But based on the US admin closing newspapers and such, I'm not betting on it.

[c]

I've made this point here before, but the disproportionate attention on our abuses is appropriate, because abuses by our government are our problem to solve. Ultimately, the free press is the public's guide to who we should throw out of office.

[Skeptikos]

and meep,

I'm kind of offended about the comments about the left. Yea, there are some neo-liberal confusionists out there, I can't deny that. But I am from the left and I'm no commie apollogist, no america hater here. I love my country.

I supported Gulf I, and our military, and I'm comfortable with it. I am not comfortable with having an entire political dismissed based on some loud and obvious folks. And last I checked I find myself on the same side as McCain in regards to prison abuses in wartime. Calling attention to our own faults does not mean ignoring others.

[Walter Wallis]

It is not noble to fight terror?

[Larry]

In Chicago a few years back, an art student displayed a painting that mocked the late mayor Harold Washington. Several aldermen took it upon themselves to remove the offending piece, and no one dare go against aldermen or they won't get their roads repaired. Who says government officials can't work together?

But it was okay. As a local black leader (incorrectly) explained, the artwork was created by a Jew, which made it even more offensive, I guess.

Now don't get me wrong--I'm not trying to make Chicago sound like a banana republic. For instance, that was just one black leader, while there's a solid minority of leftists in SF who blame present conditions on the Jews.

[meep]

Skeptikos,
You're right that there is a lot of commercial interest in the media's agenda, but naive if you truly think that politics weren't involved. Otherwise, the several polls that showed that the American public was far more interested in the Nick Berg case than Abu Ghraib would have had an appropriate response. But people had to turn to internet sources for that information (almost completely filling the top search request lists) because the media weren't responding to consumer interest. In that case, apparently, the political agenda trumped the commercial one.
"Maybe if the Iraqi's see some of this freedom Bush keeps talking about we might see some art like that. But based on the US admin closing newspapers and such, I'm not betting on it."

So now that Saddam is gone, and his secret police are no longer disappearing friends and family members on a regular basis, we can all breathe a sigh of relief. But wait!!! A newspaper promoting violence against our troops was shut down! Obviously, there is no freedom to be had in Iraq.

When I say, "the left", I am generally referring to the louder, loonier segment--just like when I say "the right." But the extremists do reveal something about the moderates, on both sides.

[Skeptikos]

"So now that Saddam is gone, and his secret police are no longer disappearing friends and family members on a regular basis, we can all breathe a sigh of relief. But wait!!! A newspaper promoting violence against our troops was shut down! Obviously, there is no freedom to be had in Iraq."

Hmmm...No doubt Tom Paine was dangerous too.

FYI I consider myself to be an original Goldwater conservative, but like Barry, I became disillusined with the neo-con movement. I am sorry if I am laughing at you, but I didn't know you could have "sort of" freedom of the press.

Comrade, to me, closing down a newspaper is closing down a newspaper.

[Sphynx]

In addtion to agreeing with Mark S.'s comments -

Tom:

"Just think, in an A-L society, this woman would need to make a complaint to a judge in a community where this intense dislike of her wares seems to be a common attitude."

Don't you think that, in an Anarcho (or Minarcho/constitutionalist) society, the gallery owner would have had the means (or not been barred by law from aquiring the means)to defend herself against any unprovoked physical assault? Yes, it is possible that some narrow minded bigot like the one who beat her could still "get the jump" on her, but isn't it probable that she or one of her associates, being armed to defend themselves and their property from private or "public" initiation of force, would have been able to stop the attack once it was initiated?

The individual(s) involved in this attack deserved (at the time of the attack) to die for thier bigotry and stupidity. If apprehended now, they should pay restitution to Ms. Haigh for the injury they caused her.

Sphynx:
(Let Freedom Return!)

[Skeptikos]

Also. please note what a wimp move closing that paper down was...we closed it, he complained, started rebeling, got support exclusively becasue we closed him down, forced our retreat when we fought him, and still managing to keep us at bay.
Why, becasue we have a government that doesn't know what democracy and freedom look like.

Basically we betrayed our beliefs (well mine at least, freedom, truth, justice) and we got our ass kicked.

Freedom means tolerating even the fools speech.

[Will]

Silly Tim Cavanaugh and his Harry Potter headlines!

Hey - anyone interested in reading a fun book about Waco (and the mis-named Ruby Ridge) should check out Them: Adventures with Extremists by Jon Ronson... great read, informative, yadda yadda yadda...

[JDM]

"Remember everyone, the War On Terrorism is about protecting America's freedom's from the zealots and fundementalists with no respect for the rule of law or human rights."

Sigh. I think Marshall law is still a ways off. Goodwin's law, however, can't be enforced soon enough...

[JDM]

Ummm... wrong quote.

Should have pasted in:

"My suggestion is that responsible americans should study Germany of the early 1930 (while they were still democratic). I think you will find it constructive."

I had another remarkably witty comment about the quote I posted above, but it escapes me now.

[Mark S.]

JDM: I was *just* about to say: HEY! I didn't even mention Hitler!

Thanks for the correction.

[Fred]

Skepticos is not very skeptical. We sent that puppy back home with his tail between his legs. Because we handled it just right, everyone turned on Sadr and he's a joke now, even among the local KKK-like thugs who wanted to join him.

[Dan]

I like this line from Cooper's blog:

It's to let people know that the use of physical intimidation and assault to squelch opinion will not brooked in this town.

I realize that San Francisco is much too enlightened and progressive to entertain a barbaric suggestion like the one I'm about to offer, but...

... how about "letting people know that the use of physical intimidation to squelch opinion will not be brooked in this town" by, oh, say, catching the person who did it, arresting them, and throwing them in prison? The artist didn't suffer. Why reward him? The person who suffered here was the gallery owner; find the people who hurt her and make them pay for it.

Hell, the artist is going to make out like a bandit on this overnight, that painting went from "ugly worthless crap" to "important art worth scads of cash".

One final note -- I would love to see a reporter ask Aaron Peskin a question like this: "If a homophobe was beaten for painting a picture called 'All Fags Must Die', would you support hanging that painting in City Hall"? That would be amusing to watch. People who think this is about the abused gallery owner are kidding themselves. 🙂

[garym]

I'm reminded of some of the public reaction to Waco... except that even then, I don't recall anyone being beaten up for objecting to the government's treatment of "religious nuts." There were lynchings of Americans who opposed America's role in World War I; I hope things don't reach that point.

Cooper is off-target in implying Bush is somehow to blame for the thugs, though.

[Mark S.]

Remember everyone, the War On Terrorism is about protecting America's freedom's from the zealots and fundementalists with no respect for the rule of law or human rights.

[dhex]

this story gave me a chance to check out freerepublic for the first time. i now understand the "freepers" jokes.

nobody except a small handful of people gave a shit about waco. i think maybe it takes on a different air for some in light of all the patriotism (and PATRIOTisms) but...

[Karl Kraus]

Mark, Mark, Mark:
The War on Terror is, in reality, for the Children. TGIF 🙂
KK

[tom wright]

Remember, social pressure is how anarcho-libertarians want personal behaviour to be controlled. No laws or courts are needed, and even if they are, the laws should be judge made.

Just think, in an A-L society, this woman would need to make a complaint to a judge in a community where this intense dislike of her wares seems to be a common attitude. If the judge also dislike these same items, he will rule against her and ban the items, and perhaps her as well. Just like the early Puritans and other religious communities in this country did.

Would any A-L's like to re-think this position?

Tom
( Libertarian != Anarchist )

[Skeptikos]

I wonder how relevant it is to use the word Blame in connecting this to Bush. My question is more: Would Georgie Porgie and Dicky, not to mention Trent L and Dennie H, be happier in a country where dissent is supressed violently? I think they would. Do they lead us in that direction? I think they do.

My suggestion is that responsible americans should study Germany of the early 1930 (while they were still democratic). I think you will find it constructive. And in reflection of such incidents as this, rather nerve racking and paranoid inducing. Although I AM SURE THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN HERE. Yea, riiiight....I also might recomend Fromm's Escape from Freedom. I just reread it, and although I have a lot of problems with his take on the universe, I do find his examination of the rush to flush freedom right on the mark.

[M. Simon]

Perhaps a picture depicting Kerry machine gunning women and children is in order.

For the sake of balance and ultimate truth.

[Prolix]

Skepticos:

"I wonder how relevant it is to use the word Blame in connecting this to Bush. My question is more: Would Georgie Porgie and Dicky, not to mention Trent L and Dennie H, be happier in a country where dissent is supressed violently? I think they would. Do they lead us in that direction? I think they do."

Can't think of an administration in my lifetime of which this wasn't true. Seems to be true of most people too, although what they want to suppress varies.

Mark S.

"Give the Right a chance and they will: This painting spreads nothing but misinformation and lies about our county's noble efforts to combat terrorism here and abroad It demoralizes our fighting men and women, and tries to shame Americans into lowering our guard making us open to terrorist incidents."

Maybe so, but it doesn't seem very relevant to this story- sounds like one or two pissed off people, not the right in general, or any significant or organized portion of it. Not like they went Seattle on her or anything. They should be found and jailed- and the penalty should be greater than the norm for this sort of assault. But don't confuse even vitriolic criticism of speech with its suppression. To do so is, if we accept the premise, suppression in turn, unto infinite regress.

ibid.:

"I would think that even in the most hypothetical anarcho-capitalist society a private arbitrator would respect freedom of speech of the artist AND the property rights of the gallery owner."

I'm not sure why you think this. Maybe:

"...the libertarians on this list, "anarcho" or otherwise, are on side of the gallery owner. I would imagine all libertarians, regardless of what they're particular school of thought, would not want anyone to use coercive power against the artist or the gallery owner."

So anarcho-libertarianism requires that all members of the society share the sensibilities of today's anarcho-libertarians? Given the percentage of anarcho-libertarians in the general population, I think that would not likely be the case. Given the proclivities, and frailties of humans in general, and anarcho-libertarians in particular...

Sphynx:

"Don't you think that, in an Anarcho (or Minarcho/constitutionalist) society, the gallery owner would have had the means (or not been barred by law from aquiring the means)to defend herself against any unprovoked physical assault?"

But what if there were more of them, or they were better armed? Does anarcho-libertarianism boil down to who gets there furstest with the mostest? Not that other forms of government don't, in the end, but I'd rather have that bitter pill with a bit of sugar coating.

As far as utopias go, right anarchism seems like a pretty good one, though it seems to me it misses a few fundamental things about what humans require to be happy. But like any utopian scheme, attempts to implement it will lead inevitably to dystopia- funny how a wide variety of utopian ideals can give rise to essentially the same dystopia.

Don't get me wrong though- I like right-anarchists better than left-anarchists. That their anarchisme will inexorably lead to totalitarianism is a bug to the first, and a feature to the second.

JDM:

"Goodwin's law, however, can't be enforced soon enough..."

I think that the invocation of Nazis in a discussion of the tendencies of a society toward fascism does not make a thread Godwinnable, even if the comparison is way over the top. The law seems to have been formulated in response to things like: "You prefer XEmacs? Hitler would have too." (Beat the heathen over the head 3 times with a copy of the elisp reference manual...)

Good thing too- while it may be true that as posts in a Usenet thread approach infinity the probability of a Nazi comparison being made approaches one, I would suggest that on a political blog the word infinity in the above should be replaced by the word fifty.

[Travis]

Has anyone noticed how very lame the painting in question is? Oooh, it's a black and white rendition with a bunch of rednecks and a robed woman in the background. What symbolism! And look, the flag is the only bit in color, how daring!

What a mediocre piece of canvas. Simple exploitation of tragedy, what a lack of consideration and thought. He could have saved himself a couple hours by simply photoshopping one of the photos for the same effect, it would probably be more interesting. If that's the sort of work this guy turns out, maybe he needs this publicity.